Search form

Analysis of Collaboration in Political Practice/Praxis

For some analysts, collaboration at this phase meant negotiated alliances between researchers and stakeholders broadly speaking (Wood and Gray 1991; Fortun and Cherkasky 1998); for others, it explicitly meant researchers and community activists (e.g. Cervone 2015). Analysts differed in their perspectives on what constituted “good” collaboration. For example, Fortun and Cherkasky viewed collaboration as a politics of difference, “drawing in people with different interests, perspectives and skills into synchronized effort to accomplish something that could not be accomplished individually." They found that for collaboration to work, diversity or pluralism must be turned into a resource. Because collaboration requires and establishes difference, they found collectivity can not only be difficult to produce but also can be marginalizing and alienating. This echoed a point raised by Cervone (2015) who called collaboration “mutifaceted and rhizomic” and asked if it might be too weak of a word to describe the entanglements of complicity, cultural orientation, suspicion and paranoia, commitment and intimate involvement, credit and authority, and the production of reliable knowledge for partially articulated goals.

Most analysts explicitly discussed collaboration as a process but had different perspectives on what the end goal of such processes and negotiations were, with some holding the assumed goal of collaboration as being arrival at a shared (stable) problem domain and every stakeholder’s place in it (Wood and Gray 1991) which is a goal starkly divergent from what Fortun and Cherkasky (1998) describe as the ongoing formation of new social alliances through the generation of new explanations and avoidance of grand theorization.